What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Federberg]

@mrzz

I’m not sure why you say she has puppet masters. She’s only 16 years old. Wouldn’t theoretical puppet masters want someone older, knowing her age could be problematic? Are you familiar with her background?

So-called “climate deniers” or those who don’t “believe” in climate change are the ones parroting talking points which have been disseminated by the oil industry for ages. I think it was the former head of ExxonMobil who talked about “doubt” being their currency: as long as there’s doubt about whether or not climate change is real, they’ve achieved their goals. They never wanted to disprove it, because they knew they couldn’t; they only wanted there to be doubt.

But concepts such as “belief” and “doubt” don’t factor into this. With 97% of climate scientists in agreement, there’s no place for belief. Someone saying they don’t believe in climate change is akin to someone saying they don’t believe that cigarettes are harmful. What other concept which has a 97% scientific consensus is still being debated or doubted? It is a reminder of how long there were questions about whether or not cigarettes are harmful, because the tobacco industry wanted there to be doubt, so that they could keep selling them. And now we have the oil/gas industry wanting there to be doubt, so that they can keep making billions of dollars.

Exactly so. Climate deniers are clearly projecting. I find it difficult to understand why. They won’t profit from this, only the privileged few like Mr Koch stand to benefit. The rest of us will suffer directly and indirectly. As an aside a respected analyst recently opined that we are reaching a point where the endgame will result in the forcible banning of fossil fuel usage in the coming decades

 

[mrzz]

@mrzz

I’m not sure why you say she has puppet masters. She’s only 16 years old. Wouldn’t theoretical puppet masters want someone older, knowing her age could be problematic? Are you familiar with her background?

So-called “climate deniers” or those who don’t “believe” in climate change are the ones parroting talking points which have been disseminated by the oil industry for ages. I think it was the former head of ExxonMobil who talked about “doubt” being their currency: as long as there’s doubt about whether or not climate change is real, they’ve achieved their goals. They never wanted to disprove it, because they knew they couldn’t; they only wanted there to be doubt.

But concepts such as “belief” and “doubt” don’t factor into this. With 97% of climate scientists in agreement, there’s no place for belief. Someone saying they don’t believe in climate change is akin to someone saying they don’t believe that cigarettes are harmful. What other concept which has a 97% scientific consensus is still being debated or doubted? It is a reminder of how long there were questions about whether or not cigarettes are harmful, because the tobacco industry wanted there to be doubt, so that they could keep selling them. And now we have the oil/gas industry wanting there to be doubt, so that they can keep making billions of dollars.

In no line that I wrote I disputed that there is climate change. My first post on the subject was that GT was almost turning me in to a climate change denier. To the good readers that we have here, the message should be clear: I am not a climate change denier (as my other posts show), but I find that rhetoric extremely distasteful and irritating, so irritating that I almost can change my rational conclusion just because of that. You know those cheap horror movies from the eighties, where the victim only trips and screams, and you suddenly find yourself rooting for the guy/creature with the axe in hand? It is not that you are denying that he is a killer....

About the "puppet masters"... no, I have zero knowledge of her background. But do I think that it is "natural" that she is giving speeches in the UN? That she is there as normal outcome of her long and important work as an activist? Come on...

Yes, with 97% of consensus, it should be easy to have a rational response to the problem. But yet, as Chris aptly noted, this is all intended to draw an emotional response. Well, I am posting in this topic with zero filters to show that one can reap a lot of different emotional responses with that approach.

Yes, the oil/gas industry wants to keep making billions of dollar. So does the industry that wants to replace them. There is no logical connection between "conservative" and "climate change denier", and between "liberal" and "green activist". The only connection is the donors behind the political parties. They don't give a shit about carbon emissions, they care about replacing that industry with their own. Any other viable solution (and there are a few, for example, nuclear energy, which is waaaaaay more safe and with less sub-products nowadays than it was 30 years ago), but it is not "cool" enough. Yes, it is about money. It is all about money.

^So we know what you don't like. But for clarity... are you a climate denier or if you're not, what do you suggest as a solution?

I answered above, it should be quite clear that I am not a "climate denier". Obviously I do not know the solution, but I recognize that to put money on research of new technologies is the smartest thing to do (and this is being done, and I do not see GT crying for that, actually she explicitly dismissed that). Other thing would be to discuss the idea of cutting down energy consumption, but I also don't see GT crying for that. One thing I do see, not GT, but other people discussing is global scale dietary changes, which is a fine discussion. But I also do not see anyone discuss reducing population concentration (which leads to a lot of side effects that end up in higher emission). Who would want to get rid of a lot of voters?

In a nutshell, as I replied to Tented above. It is completely clear to me that this is all about money. I don't believe for a split second that people are stoking mass fear with ultimate good intentions.

By the way, there are rational people out there who are not climate change deniers and that do not agree with that approach as well. Actually, I would like to make a poll between those famous 97% and see how many of them actually endorse that hysterical approach. I am sure we would find another 97% consensus.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

In no line that I wrote I disputed that there is climate change. My first post on the subject was that GT was almost turning me in to a climate change denier. To the good readers that we have here, the message should be clear: I am not a climate change denier (as my other posts show), but I find that rhetoric extremely distasteful and irritating, so irritating that I almost can change my rational conclusion just because of that. You know those cheap horror movies from the eighties, where the victim only trips and screams, and you suddenly find yourself rooting for the guy/creature with the axe in hand? It is not that you are denying that he is a killer....

About the "puppet masters"... no, I have zero knowledge of her background. But do I think that it is "natural" that she is giving speeches in the UN? That she is there as normal outcome of her long and important work as an activist? Come on...

Yes, with 97% of consensus, it should be easy to have a rational response to the problem. But yet, as Chris aptly noted, this is all intended to draw an emotional response. Well, I am posting in this topic with zero filters to show that one can reap a lot of different emotional responses with that approach.

Yes, the oil/gas industry wants to keep making billions of dollar. So does the industry that wants to replace them. There is no logical connection between "conservative" and "climate change denier", and between "liberal" and "green activist". The only connection is the donors behind the political parties. They don't give a shit about carbon emissions, they care about replacing that industry with their own. Any other viable solution (and there are a few, for example, nuclear energy, which is waaaaaay more safe and with less sub-products nowadays than it was 30 years ago), but it is not "cool" enough. Yes, it is about money. It is all about money.



I answered above, it should be quite clear that I am not a "climate denier". Obviously I do not know the solution, but I recognize that to put money on research of new technologies is the smartest thing to do (and this is being done, and I do not see GT crying for that, actually she explicitly dismissed that). Other thing would be to discuss the idea of cutting down energy consumption, but I also don't see GT crying for that. One thing I do see, not GT, but other people discussing is global scale dietary changes, which is a fine discussion. But I also do not see anyone discuss reducing population concentration (which leads to a lot of side effects that end up in higher emission). Who would want to get rid of a lot of voters?

In a nutshell, as I replied to Tented above. It is completely clear to me that this is all about money. I don't believe for a split second that people are stoking mass fear with ultimate good intentions.

By the way, there are rational people out there who are not climate change deniers and that do not agree with that approach as well. Actually, I would like to make a poll between those famous 97% and see how many of them actually endorse that hysterical approach. I am sure we would find another 97% consensus.

That 97% thing is so deceiving by the way. It is being portrayed as if 97% of ALL scientists believe that the number one source of climate change is overwhelmingly human beings. That is not true of course.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#25bb24001157

I do believe climate changes. I do not subscribe to the current alarmist climate porn though. My position on the issue changed quite drastically after talking to a couple of professors who lost their grants because they shook the boat, so to speak. Climate is big business. As big as the Oil business.
I do not like when kids are used for these causes though...It reeks of manipulation. Just like that girl after that high school shooting, all teary eyed, asking for gun reform. How did that one work out? Second amendment is reversed now? I do not ask teenagers for policy advice. They have to learn to clean their fucking room first, and then we will talk.
Oh by the way, there is no such thing is science by consensus. It may take only one person to be right. Galileo's heliocentrism did not have a lot of fans , no? Yet here we are...
And a quick reminder of the catastrophe that can be caused by "science by consensus": Read the history of eugenics in North America and subsequently in Hitler's Germany. It was fact. Crystal clear. Universities taught it, scientists believed it, governments supported it. Millions of forced sterilizations and deaths later, we are ashamed when we are reminded of it and rightfully so. But see, the science was crystal clear then...
The same group of people who were warning us in the 70s that a catastrophic COOLING was around the corner now claim the opposite. I am not sure why I should be believing them now this time around.

My scientific mind leans towards the Earth's rotation around the sun, the sun's effects and the Earth's natural cooling and warming cycles as more credible reasons for climate change . I find it hard to believe that 4.5 billion years of history and only 200 years of industry can have this much effect. Considering the fact that we had way more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in many instances in the past when no industry was present. I do not believe carbon dioxide is the boogeyman. It is plant food for fuck's sake !

And the number one reason for not buying into the climate porn of today? You know all those big banks and big insurance companies that the left love to bash every chance they get because they are just evil entities that take your money and they do not care about anything else but money? Well those companies are STILL selling long term mortgages and insurances for those mortgages all around those coasts that are supposed to be under water in the next 20 years ! In what universe those greedy corporations risk that?

The reason I am an atheist is the same for not believing the alarmist climate porn: The supporters of both say it is beyond discussing. I cannot have that

In a nutshell, climate changes , all the time, and if humans have a role in it, it is minimal and not catastrophic in any way. I do my part to keep my environment clean, I recycle. Because it is the right thing to do, not because we are dying in 12 years.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not quite sure what we're squabbling about here. If there is a global climate crisis/climate change, and it seems there is, and it needs to be addressed, then we seem to agree that ignoring it is dumb, but things have to be discussed, with all of the world involved, to help solve the problems, which are multi-faceted. I agree with mrzz that how we eat, and population control should be, and are, in the discussion. However, I don't quite agree that there is more money in some climate change industry than there is in protecting the large corporations that have interests in fossil fuels and propogating some climate change denial, as tented well pointed out. Still, trying to solve problems in concert is surely more important than arguing over why they happened.

The thing I don't get is the outrage from Mrzz and Murat about teenagers involving themselves in political issues, as they feel affected by them. And I find it quite cynical to think that they are "manipulated" by others. Murat, the students from Parkland, FL who became active after their school was shot up didn't get the 2nd Amendment repealed, but they did get at least one law changed in FL. One thing at a time. That's how grassroots movements work. And unlike drinking or the draft, you don't have to be 18 or 21 to participate.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I'm not quite sure what we're squabbling about here. If there is a global climate crisis/climate change, and it seems there is, and it needs to be addressed, then we seem to agree that ignoring it is dumb, but things have to be discussed, with all of the world involved, to help solve the problems, which are multi-faceted. I agree with mrzz that how we eat, and population control should be, and are, in the discussion. However, I don't quite agree that there is more money in some climate change industry than there is in protecting the large corporations that have interests in fossil fuels and propogating some climate change denial, as tented well pointed out. Still, trying to solve problems in concert is surely more important than arguing over why they happened.

The thing I don't get is the outrage from Mrzz and Murat about teenagers involving themselves in political issues, as they feel affected by them. And I find it quite cynical to think that they are "manipulated" by others. Murat, the students from Parkland, FL who became active after their school was shot up didn't get the 2nd Amendment repealed, but they did get at least one law changed in FL. One thing at a time. That's how grassroots movements work. And unlike drinking or the draft, you don't have to be 18 or 21 to participate.

The issue is , proposed "solutions" , supposing the alarmism is correct, do absolutely nothing to solve the issue and create huge economical crisis all over the world. Good thing it isn't.

That young girl surely is manipulated. Do you think she can discuss this issue with an opponent? No...because she has no clue what she is saying. Adults told her to say it so she is saying them. Because when you put the face of a child on an issue, it is easier to call the other side evil. Of course people like me who see through this do not give a fuck what you call us

This climate porn is such a first world problem for the anti human people. I wonder what the woman in Siberia who has to burn cow shit to heat her home in winter (oh my god, the carbon foot print!) to keep her children warm feel about the whole thing...Do you think a little warming would be OK for her?

 

[Moxie]

I still think you're wrong to say that these young people aren't self-determinate, but we can stop going around about that. You and Mrzz think what you think. Done.

To pretend that climate change is a first world problem is most definitely to ignore reality. It's far from the First World that is suffering the most, or will, in the short- and likely long-term. This is a rather dry government treatise on how climate change affects Native Americans. You don't have to go down too far to get to the salient bits. I was listening to a piece the other day, (which I can't find right now,) and I can't say if it was about First Nations people in Canada, or Native Americans, but it had to do with loss of life-style and isolation due to the fact that they were losing their ice...so they couldn't visit one another. Or hunt they way they used to. Loss of ice is NOT a first world problem. It's something faced in more remote climes, and these are the people that are saying they see the effects most immediately. I mentioned Greenland, above. It's affecting their lifestyle, their food sources, and how they relate in community.

Murat, you're still trying to call it "global warming." It's not that. It's "global climate change." Or, I would say, crisis. If you think it's a first-world problem, talk to the people in Puerto Rico. Look at the number of Cat. 5 Hurricanes that have hit, historically. From 1924-1998, there were 21 Cat. 5 Hurricanes (64 years.) From 2003-Dorian, there have been 13 in the last 16 years, and we're still in the sweet-spot of the hurricane season. Even if you look at the affects of Katrina on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the US, who really suffered, and got displaced? The poor, by-and-large. I find it facile and over-determined to think that this climate change conversation is just a bunch of elitists and smart-pants drinking white wine and sneering at big corporations, or somehow looking to line their own pockets by decrying climate change. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and they are not the rich ones.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I still think you're wrong to say that these young people aren't self-determinate, but we can stop going around about that. You and Mrzz think what you think. Done.

To pretend that climate change is a first world problem is most definitely to ignore reality. It's far from the First World that is suffering the most, or will, in the short- and likely long-term. This is a rather dry government treatise on how climate change affects Native Americans. You don't have to go down too far to get to the salient bits. I was listening to a piece the other day, (which I can't find right now,) and I can't say if it was about First Nations people in Canada, or Native Americans, but it had to do with loss of life-style and isolation due to the fact that they were losing their ice...so they couldn't visit one another. Or hunt they way they used to. Loss of ice is NOT a first world problem. It's something faced in more remote climes, and these are the people that are saying they see the effects most immediately. I mentioned Greenland, above. It's affecting their lifestyle, their food sources, and how they relate in community.

Murat, you're still trying to call it "global warming." It's not that. It's "global climate change." Or, I would say, crisis. If you think it's a first-world problem, talk to the people in Puerto Rico. Look at the number of Cat. 5 Hurricanes that have hit, historically. From 1924-1998, there were 21 Cat. 5 Hurricanes (64 years.) From 2003-Dorian, there have been 13 in the last 16 years, and we're still in the sweet-spot of the hurricane season. Even if you look at the affects of Katrina on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the US, who really suffered, and got displaced? The poor, by-and-large. I find it facile and over-determined to think that this climate change conversation is just a bunch of elitists and smart-pants drinking white wine and sneering at big corporations, or somehow looking to line their own pockets by decrying climate change. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and they are not the rich ones.

As I was mentioning before, it is next to impossible to argue or discuss climate issues with folks that buy into it because it is almost like religion, like a cult. EVERYTHING that is happening is because of catastrophic climate change. Dry year? Climate change. Hurricanes? Climate change. Cold winter? Climate change. Hot summer? Climate change.
You actually believe human activity can increase the number of hurricanes or the intensity of it? How? Is there really solid science behind it?
Here is a list of number of hurricanes in Atlantic since 1851. Tell me what kind of human activity caused those numbers in 1887 or 1933.
http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

Moxie there is so much we do not know about weather and climate. I know I don't but I try to read as much as I can. You are talking about Greenland. Records show Greenland used to be actually partly green during the Medieval Warming Period. How about that? What caused it in your opinion?
4.5 billion years Moxie. This planet has seen countless ice ages, mini ice ages, warming periods, cooling periods. Why don't the alarmists take history into account? I am not talking a couple hundred years.

 

[Moxie]

So you sort of are denying climate change. My father, who was an oceanographer/marine biologist, was where you are now, but in the mid-1970s. He knew that scientists drummed up ideas to pay for their research, and he thought that warm winters and cool summers didn't really tell us much. Were merely anecdotal. But by the late 80s, he was well-convinced. By the science. My father was skeptical, but willing to look at the science. You sound to me just like some old voice from the 70s, and really without a scientist's perspective. Your argument comes from the distant past, and I think we're far beyond that now.

Of course, there are year to year climate anomalies. And there are climate changes across many ages. But rapid climate change is a different thing.

 

[mrzz]

That 97% thing is so deceiving by the way. It is being portrayed as if 97% of ALL scientists believe that the number one source of climate change is overwhelmingly human beings. That is not true of course.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#25bb24001157

I do believe climate changes. I do not subscribe to the current alarmist climate porn though. My position on the issue changed quite drastically after talking to a couple of professors who lost their grants because they shook the boat, so to speak. Climate is big business. As big as the Oil business.
I do not like when kids are used for these causes though...It reeks of manipulation. Just like that girl after that high school shooting, all teary eyed, asking for gun reform. How did that one work out? Second amendment is reversed now? I do not ask teenagers for policy advice. They have to learn to clean their fucking room first, and then we will talk.
Oh by the way, there is no such thing is science by consensus. It may take only one person to be right. Galileo's heliocentrism did not have a lot of fans , no? Yet here we are...
And a quick reminder of the catastrophe that can be caused by "science by consensus": Read the history of eugenics in North America and subsequently in Hitler's Germany. It was fact. Crystal clear. Universities taught it, scientists believed it, governments supported it. Millions of forced sterilizations and deaths later, we are ashamed when we are reminded of it and rightfully so. But see, the science was crystal clear then...
The same group of people who were warning us in the 70s that a catastrophic COOLING was around the corner now claim the opposite. I am not sure why I should be believing them now this time around.

My scientific mind leans towards the Earth's rotation around the sun, the sun's effects and the Earth's natural cooling and warming cycles as more credible reasons for climate change . I find it hard to believe that 4.5 billion years of history and only 200 years of industry can have this much effect. Considering the fact that we had way more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in many instances in the past when no industry was present. I do not believe carbon dioxide is the boogeyman. It is plant food for fuck's sake !

And the number one reason for not buying into the climate porn of today? You know all those big banks and big insurance companies that the left love to bash every chance they get because they are just evil entities that take your money and they do not care about anything else but money? Well those companies are STILL selling long term mortgages and insurances for those mortgages all around those coasts that are supposed to be under water in the next 20 years ! In what universe those greedy corporations risk that?

The reason I am an atheist is the same for not believing the alarmist climate porn: The supporters of both say it is beyond discussing. I cannot have that

In a nutshell, climate changes , all the time, and if humans have a role in it, it is minimal and not catastrophic in any way. I do my part to keep my environment clean, I recycle. Because it is the right thing to do, not because we are dying in 12 years.

I largely agree with you on the spirit of your post. I only disagree about the shootings -- there is a difference since the kids there were participants, and that was not the first high school shooting. It is natural that people would ask their opinions about this, and as participants/survivors their opinion do matter. Not exactly the case of GT. Her opinion matters just as any other non-technical opinion.

Other thing I don't go as far as you is to be sure about how small or large climate change is (btw, thanks for the very informative link). And this is were the 97% thing is REALLY misleading (and something I always had quite clear to myself). Even if the 97% figure were precise, you would still need to factor how large (or small) each subject agreed climate change was. Let us say that to each one we could ask a (simplistic) question: "how long until we reach the point of no return if we keep doing exactly what we are doing now"? What would be the average answer? The famous 12 years? Very much doubt that. But would it be 20000 years? I also don't think so.

The extremely dishonest trick some people play (and a similar fallacy is present in GT's speech) is to associate the 97% (or the 85%, as the author of article suggests) to the 12 years, which is probably taken from ONE study.

Do I think we are so utterly close to the threshold? No. But I do think we should, rationally, at least consider the possibility (that is, try to estimate the risk), and, even if we assume we are a thousand years from the threshold, it is reasonable to take, or to plan, some action. But we surely agree that the hysterical approach is largely idiotic and most solutions proposed by those people are there more to serve economic interests than anything else.

 

[mrzz]

4.5 billion years Moxie. This planet has seen countless ice ages, mini ice ages, warming periods, cooling periods. Why don't the alarmists take history into account? I am not talking a couple hundred years.

I think this is quite reasonable, but I don't like some recent finding like this one (taken from the NASA website):

(but I do not see 12 years written in this graph, don't worry)

 

[Moxie]

Sorry, but I am yet to be clear what "economic interests" are served by those who are trying to combat climate change. Who is it, again, that's about to get rich by activism against global climate change?

 

[mrzz]

Sorry, but I am yet to be clear what "economic interests" are served by those who are trying to combat climate change. Who is it, again, that's about to get rich by activism against global climate change?

Moxie, if we replace carbon and fossil fuels, some other source of energy must come into place, and the billions earned by that industry (selling energy) will be earned by others. The energy consumption won't drop, it will be merely replaced (let alone the industrial pike required to replace the energy industry hardware). I am not saying that this is a bad thing per se (the "replacement"), but it is obviously an economic interest. Competition between energy sector is part of everyday reality for years (as legislation taxes different energy sources differently).

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, if we replace carbon and fossil fuels, some other source of energy must come into place, and the billions earned by that industry (selling energy) will be earned by others. The energy consumption won't drop, it will be merely replaced (let alone the industrial pike required to replace the energy industry hardware). I am not saying that this is a bad thing per se (the "replacement"), but it is obviously an economic interest. Competition between energy sector is part of everyday reality for years (as legislation taxes different energy sources differently).

I never said that people earning money off of energy generation was a bad thing. But we do have to talk about what things ill-affect the climate. Don't you think that part of the problem is sorting out who already controls where the energy comes from, and their interests? They do have a lot of money and influence. You're saying that the "climate change" folks could have a money stake in this. But the old-school energy generators could make themselves part of the new fuel economy money, too. And will, I think. But they're resisting the change because they have an economic pipeline in place and it would cost them to shift.

 

[mrzz]

I never said that people earning money off of energy generation was a bad thing. But we do have to talk about what things ill-affect the climate. Don't you think that part of the problem is sorting out who already controls where the energy comes from, and their interests? They do have a lot of money and influence. You're saying that the "climate change" folks could have a money stake in this. But the old-school energy generators could make themselves part of the new fuel economy money, too. And will, I think. But they're resisting the change because they have an economic pipeline in place and it would cost them to shift.

I completely agree with that.

 

[britbox]

I think this is quite reasonable, but I don't like some recent finding like this one (taken from the NASA website):

(but I do not see 12 years written in this graph, don't worry)

I think it's worth considering the relativity of time.

Let's assume the planet is 4.5 billion years old and also assume we had completely accurate data for the past 2000 years (we don't, but just for argument's sake).

Using that as a basis would cover 0.00004444444% of the lifetime of the planet. To scale, in human terms, that's the equivalent of just under 4 seconds of a day.

It's a very complicated science dealing with chaotic systems over a long period of time with millions of variables. Anyone denying climate change is a fool - there is constant climate change - it's chaotic. However, healthy scepticism about the causes is good in my opinion. I'm with Murat on this.

The bigger concerns are that this is getting mixed in with ideology. "The argument is over", "The climate issue has been settled beyond doubt"... which aren't the types of approaches I would expect from science, quite the opposite in fact. Science should always be a journey of discovery...

 

[mrzz]

I think it's worth considering the relativity of time.

Let's assume the planet is 4.5 billion years old and also assume we had completely accurate data for the past 2000 years (we don't, but just for argument's sake).

Using that as a basis would cover 0.00004444444% of the lifetime of the planet. To scale, in human terms, that's the equivalent of just under 4 seconds of a day.

It's a very complicated science dealing with chaotic systems over a long period of time with millions of variables. Anyone denying climate change is a fool - there is constant climate change - it's chaotic. However, healthy scepticism about the causes is good in my opinion. I'm with Murat on this.

The bigger concerns are that this is getting mixed in with ideology. "The argument is over", "The climate issue has been settled beyond doubt"... which aren't the types of approaches I would expect from science, quite the opposite in fact. Science should always be a journey of discovery...

I completely agree with the healthy skepticism. As you cannot see from my posts above I am neither a "denier" nor a "believer" -- which are actually two strange categories for a scientific discussion. The time argument is a good one, but we if on one hand we have only accurate observational data for a very short time span (around 100 years), we have much more indirect data (taken from other measures) which can be quite accurate. The above graph is such an example, as it depicts carbon dioxide levels over thousands of years. Of course, if you ask me how reliable such data is, I cannot answer (simply by ignorance, but I guess @Chris Koziarz could help us here). Actually considering how (regrettably) political this issue became, we now need to even question the data source (would the researches that performed the indirect measurements biased enough to interfere with their own results?) I still believe in some minimal moral standard in exact science so I am assuming most data is reliable in that sense.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

So you sort of are denying climate change. My father, who was an oceanographer/marine biologist, was where you are now, but in the mid-1970s. He knew that scientists drummed up ideas to pay for their research, and he thought that warm winters and cool summers didn't really tell us much. Were merely anecdotal. But by the late 80s, he was well-convinced. By the science. My father was skeptical, but willing to look at the science. You sound to me just like some old voice from the 70s, and really without a scientist's perspective. Your argument comes from the distant past, and I think we're far beyond that now.

Of course, there are year to year climate anomalies. And there are climate changes across many ages. But rapid climate change is a different thing.

I give you historical facts, I talk about Galileo, I talk about the history of eugenics, I talk about earth's rotation and it's effects, I give you a list of hurricanes since early 18 hundreds , I explain about Greenland's past and yet you are saying I do not believe in science. I am saying YOU do not. You are into emotions, I am into facts. Maybe science means different things to different people. I don't care about emotions.

 

[tented]

Honestly, the impact of disinformation by Big Oil cannot be ignored.

Holding Major Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable for Nearly 40 Years of Climate Deception and Harm

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

ExxonMobil climate change controversy

Yes, of course the Earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling before, but the data show what has happened in the last century is different, with a clear correlation between the rise of the Industrial Age and rising temperatures.

Like @Moxie, I don’t see where anyone other than Big Oil is going to profit from this. If there were other companies with the money and power of an ExxonMobil-type corporation, which would profit from climate change, I would get the back and forth argument, with two financial titans facing off. But that’s not the case. What we do know is that Big Oil has spent tens of millions of dollars funding projects to spread disinformation, in order to keep doubt as their currency. It reminds me of the saying that the answer to nine out of 10 questions is money, which @mrzz also noted.

As far as young activists are concerned, I don’t see where there’s a problem here. Greta Thunberg is one person. It’s not like there are hundreds or thousands like her. If anything, she’s aberrant. If any of you read the article I linked to previously concerning her background, you would know she has Asperger syndrome. This makes her even more understandable. I have a nephew with Aspergers, and have seen firsthand how they can focus on one thing to a remarkable degree. It’s not unrealistic that someone like her could know a lot about this. She’s been focused on climate change for about seven years. That’s a long time, especially with information-devouring facet of Aspergers.

If some think she’s too young, then when would she be old enough? In one more year? Two years? Three years? Four years? Because if she’s too young, that implies there will be a moment when she shifts to being old enough. Who determines when she’s old enough? Or is it only when her views align with yours that she’s old enough?

The Parkland students are completely understandable, given what they went through. Any of us could have been like them had we survived a school shooting, and I don’t think they should be ignored or told to stay at home because of their age. They know the horror of watching friends get shot, or hiding in closets, hoping they won’t be killed. That they now want to do everything they can to influence gun control and spare others from going through this is not only understandable, it’s showing a level of concern few people ever show.

 

[Federberg]

Bear in mind that as far back as the early 70s, Big Oil had done research

Honestly, the impact of disinformation by Big Oil cannot be ignored.

Holding Major Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable for Nearly 40 Years of Climate Deception and Harm

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

ExxonMobil climate change controversy

Yes, of course the Earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling before, but the data show what has happened in the last century is different, with a clear correlation between the rise of the Industrial Age and rising temperatures.

Like @Moxie, I don’t see where anyone other than Big Oil is going to profit from this. If there were other companies with the money and power of an ExxonMobil-type corporation, which would profit from climate change, I would get the back and forth argument, with two financial titans facing off. But that’s not the case. What we do know is that Big Oil has spent tens of millions of dollars funding projects to spread disinformation, in order to keep doubt as their currency. It reminds me of the saying that the answer to nine out of 10 questions is money, which @mrzz also noted.

As far as young activists are concerned, I don’t see where there’s a problem here. Greta Thunberg is one person. It’s not like there are hundreds or thousands like her. If anything, she’s aberrant. If any of you read the article I linked to previously concerning her background, you would know she has Asperger syndrome. This makes her even more understandable. I have a nephew with Aspergers, and have seen firsthand how they can focus on one thing to a remarkable degree. It’s not unrealistic that someone like her could know a lot about this. She’s been focused on climate change for about seven years. That’s a long time, especially with information-devouring facet of Aspergers.

If some think she’s too young, then when would she be old enough? In one more year? Two years? Three years? Four years? Because if she’s too young, that implies there will be a moment when she shifts to being old enough. Who determines when she’s old enough? Or is it only when her views align with yours that she’s old enough?

The Parkland students are completely understandable, given what they went through. Any of us could have been like them had we survived a school shooting, and I don’t think they should be ignored or told to stay at home because of their age. They know the horror of watching friends get shot, or hiding in closets, hoping they won’t be killed. That they now want to do everything they can to influence gun control and spare others from going through this is not only understandable, it’s showing a level of concern few people ever show.

The Koch brothers in particular have been extremely successful blending culture politics with their financial self interest. I can understand the average man not giving this much thought but I find it particularly disappointing when more intellectual folks on the right also swallow it hook line and sinker. It's depressing.

It's funny I was looking at some beach front property. A dream place. But to my mind it's a bad bad long term investment now. I would suggest that the other folks likely to benefit are the ones whose property will be the new beachfront property. And I mean that only half in jest...

 

[Jelenafan]

Yes, of course the Earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling before, but the data show what has happened in the last century is different, with a clear correlation between the rise of the Industrial Age and rising temperatures.

We have a winner.

Man-made fossil burning practices have impacted the World TODAY that we live in. There is a direct correlation between the massive fossil fuel burning of the IR and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since. This is not a “natural” cyclical occurrence.

The fact that oil companies accurately forecast that their oil extraction practices would result in rising sea levels is recorded. THEIR studies indicated a direct correlation. 4.5 billion years of “cyclical” climate change can’t dispute that.